You are on page 1of 22

Chapter6:DesignofFoundations 79

6.1 INTRODUCTION
The substructure or foundation is the part of a structure that is usually placed below
the surface of the ground.
Footings and other foundation units transfer the loads from the structure to the soil or
rock supporting the structure.
Because the soil is generally much weaker than the concrete columns & walls that
must be supported, the contact area between the soil & the footing is much larger than
that between the supported member & the footing.
The more common types of footings are illustrated in figure (6.1). Strip footings or
wall footings display essentially one-dimensional action, cantilevering out on each side of
the wall. Spread Footings are pads that distribute the column load to an area of soil
around the column. These distribute the load in two directions. Sometimes spread footing
have pedestals, are stepped, or are tapered to save materials. A pile cap transmits the
column load to a series of piles, which in turn, transmit the load to a strong layer at some
depth below the surface hard strata. Combined footings transmit the loads from two or
more columns to the soil. Such a footing is often used when one column is close to a
property line. A mat or raft foundation transfers the loads from all the columns in a
building to the underlying soil. Mat foundations are used when very weak soils are
encountered.
The choice of foundation type is selected in consultation with the geotechnical
engineer. Factors to be considered are:
The soil strength,
The soil type,
The variability of the soil type over the area and with increasing depth, and
The susceptibility of the soil and the building to deflections.
The most basic and most common types are strip, spread, combined footings.
Eng Ahmad Al Omari Eng Essam Ghaith Eng Qutaiba Hameedi
Chapter6:DesignofFoundations 80


Figure6.1:(Types of Footings)

The two essential requirements in the design of foundation are that the total settlement
of the structure be limited to a tolerably small amount and that differential settlement of
the various parts of the structure be eliminated as nearly as possible. With respect to
possible structural damage, the elimination of differential settlement, i.e., different
amounts of settlement within the same structure, is even more important than limitations
on uniform overall settlement.
Eng Ahmad Al Omari Eng Essam Ghaith Eng Qutaiba Hameedi
Chapter6:DesignofFoundations 81

To limit settlements as indicated, it is necessary to:


Transmit the load of the structure to a soil stratum of sufficient strength.
Spread the load over a sufficiently large area of that stratum to minimize bearing
pressure.
A shallow single Foundation unit that supports all columns & walls of a structure or
parts of a structure may be called a raft foundation. A raft foundation is also called as mat
foundation. They are usually provided for multi-story buildings, overhead water tanks,
chimneys, etc. A raft foundation becomes unavoidable in submerged structure, in some
multi-story structures with basement and in retaining walls, etc. The raft foundation is
usually designed as a flat slab.
Foundation engineering often consider mats when dealing with any of the following
conditions:
9 The structural loads are so high or the soil conditions so poor that
spread footings would be exceptionally large. As a general rule of thumb,
if spread footings would cover more than about one-third of the building
footprint area a mat or some type of deep foundation will probability be
more economical,

9 The soil is very erratic & prone to excessive differential settlements.
The structural continuity & flexural strength of a mat will bridge over
these irregularities. The same is true of mats on highly expansive soils to
prone to differential heaves,

9 The structural loads are erratic, and thus increase the likelihood of
excessive differential settlement. Again, the structural continuity and
flexural strength of the mat will absorb these irregularities,

9 Lateral loads are not uniformly distributed through the structure and thus
may cause differential horizontal movement in spread footing or pile caps.
The continuity of a mat will resist such movements,

9 The uplift loads are larger than spread footings can accommodate. The
greater weight and continuity of a mat may provide sufficient resistance,
and
9 The bottom of the structure is located below the ground table, so
waterproofing is an important concern. Because mats are monolithic, they
are much easier to waterproof. The weight of the mat also helps resist
hydrostatic uplift forces from the groundwater.
In this project; due to the heavy load, earthquake design, and some of the
previous provisions the mat foundation might be used.
Eng Ahmad Al Omari Eng Essam Ghaith Eng Qutaiba Hameedi
Chapter6:DesignofFoundations 82

Many buildings are supported on mat foundations, as are soils, chimneys, and other
types of tower structures. Mats are also to support storage tanks and large machines.
Typically, the thickness, (T), is 1-2 m (3-6 ft), so mats are massive structural elements.

Although most mat foundation are directly supported on soil, sometimes engineers use
pile or shaft- supported mats, these foundation are often called piled rafts, and they are
hybrid foundations that combine features of both mat and deep foundations.

Figure6.2:(aMatFoundationSupportedDirectlyonSoil)

Figure6.3:(APileorShaftSupportedMatFoundation)
Eng Ahmad Al Omari Eng Essam Ghaith Eng Qutaiba Hameedi
Chapter6:DesignofFoundations 83

6.2 RIGID VS. NON-RIGID


There are various methods have been used to mat foundations. They can be divided
into two categories: RIGID METHOD & NON-RIGID METHODS.

6.2.1 Rigid method:
The simplest approach to structural design of mats is the rigid method (also known as
the conventional method or the conventional method of static equilibrium). This method
assumes the mat is much more rigid than the underlying soils, which means any
distortion in the mat are too small to significantly impact the distribution of bearing
pressure depends only on the applied loads and the weight of mat, and either uniform
across the bottom of the mat (if the normal acts through the centroid and no moment load
is present) or varies linearly a cross the mat (if eccentric or moment loads are present) as
shown in figure (6.4), this is the same simplifying assumption used in the analysis of
spread footings.


Figure6.4:(BearingPressureDistributionforRigidMethod)

This simple distribution makes it easy to compute the flexural stresses and deflections
(differential settlements) in the mat. For analysis purposes, the mat becomes an inverted
and simply loaded two-way slab, which means the shears, moments, and deflection may
be easily computed using the principles of the structural mechanics. The engineer can
then select the appropriate mat thickness & reinforcement.

Although this type of analysis is appropriate for spread footings, it doesn't accurately
model mat foundations becomes the width-to-thickness ratio is much greater in mats and
the assumption of rigidity is no longer valid.
Eng Ahmad Al Omari Eng Essam Ghaith Eng Qutaiba Hameedi
Chapter6:DesignofFoundations 84

Portions of a mat beneath columns and bearing walls settle more than the portions
with loss load, which means the bearing pressure will be greater beneath the heavily-
loaded zones, as shown in figure (6.5).

Figure6.5:(ThedistributionofSoilBearingPressure)
This redistribution of bearing pressure is most pronounced when the ground is stiff
compared to the mat as shown in figure (6.6), but is present to some degree in all soils.

Figure6.6:(ThedistributionofBearingPressureunderaMatFoundation)
Eng Ahmad Al Omari Eng Essam Ghaith Eng Qutaiba Hameedi
Chapter6:DesignofFoundations 85

Because the rigid method does not consider this redistribution of bearing pressure, it
doesn't produce reliable estimates of the shear, moments, and deformations in the mat. In
addition, even if the mat was perfectly rigid, the simplified bearing pressure distribution
in figure (6.6) are not correct-in reality; the bearing pressure is greater on the edges and
smaller in the center than shown in this figure.

6.2.2 Non-Rigid methods:
To become the in accuracies of the rigid method by using analyses that consider
deformations in the mat and their influence on the bearing pressure distribution. These
are called non-rigid methods, and produce more accurate values of mat deformations and
stresses, unfortunately non-rigid analyses also are more difficult to implement because
they require consideration of soil-structure interaction and because the bearing pressure
distribution is not as simple.

Coefficient of subgrade reaction:
Because non-rigid method consider the effects of local mat deformations on the
distribution of bearing pressure, it is necessary to define the relation slip between
settlement & bearing pressure. This is usually done using the coefficient of subgrade
reaction, Ks (also known as the modulus of subgrade reaction, or the subgrade modulus).
K
s
=
q
6

Where:
K
s
= coefficient of subgrade reaction.
q = Bearing pressure.
= Settlement.
The coefficient K
s
has units of force length cubed. Although we use the same units to
wt., K
s
is not the same as the same as the unit wt. and they are not numerically equal.
The interaction between the mat and the underlying soil may there be represented as a
"bed of springs" each with a stiffness K
s
per unit area, as shown in fig (6.7). Portions of
the mat that experience more settlement produce more compression in the "springs,"
which represents the higher bearing pressure, whereas portions that settle less don't
compress the springs as for and thus have less bearing pressure. The sum of these spring
forces must equal the applied structural loads plus the wt. of the mat:

p + W

- u
D
=]q dA=]6 k
x
dA
Eng Ahmad Al Omari Eng Essam Ghaith Eng Qutaiba Hameedi
Chapter6:DesignofFoundations 86

Where:
P= sum of structural loads acting on the mat.
W
f
= Pore of the mat.
u
D
= Bearing pressure between mat & soil.
A = mat-soil contact Area.
= settlement at a point on the mat.


Figure6.7:(TheCoefficientofSubgradeReactionbedofsprings)

This method of describing bearing pressure is called a soil-structure interaction
analysis because the bearing pressure depends on the mat deformations, and the mat
deformations depends on the bearing pressure.

Methods in non-rigid:

1. Winkler method.
2. Coupled method.
3. Pseudo-coupled method.
4. Multiple-parameter method.
5. Finite element method.


Eng Ahmad Al Omari Eng Essam Ghaith Eng Qutaiba Hameedi
Chapter6:DesignofFoundations 87

Determination of the coefficient of subgrade reaction:



Most mat foundation designs are currently developed using either the Winkler method
or the pseudo-coupled method, both of which depend on our ability to define the
coefficient of subgrade reaction, Ks. Unfortunately, this task is not as simple as it might
first appear because Ks is not a fundamental soil property. Its magnitude also depends on
many other factors, including the following:

1. The width of the loaded area:
A wide mat will settlement more than a narrow one with the same q
because it mobilizes the soil to a greater depth, therefore, each has a different
(k
s
).

2. The shape of the loaded area:
The stresses below long narrow loaded areas are different from those
below square loaded areas therefore, ks will differ.

3. The depth of the loaded area below the ground surface At greater depths,
the change in stress in the soil due to q is a smaller percentage of the initial
stress, so the settlement is also smaller and k
s
is greater.

4. The position on the mat To model the soil accurately, k
s
need to be larger
near the edges of the mat and smaller near the center.

5. Time - Much of the settlement of mats on deep compressible soils will be due
to consolidation and thus may occur over a period of several years. Therefore,
it may be necessary to consider both short-term and long-term cases.
Actually, there is no single k
s
value, even if we could define these factors because the
q- relationship is nonlinear and because neither method accounts for interaction between
the springs.
Engineers have tried various techniques of measuring or computing k
s
. Some rely on
plate load test to measure k
s
in situ. However, the test results must be adjusted to
compensate for the differences in width, shape, and depth of the plate and the mat. Plate
load tests include dubious assumption that the soils within the shallow zone of influence
below the plate are comparable to those in the much deeper zone below the mat.
Therefore, plate load test generally do not provide good estimates of k
s
for mat foundation
design.
Others have derived relationships between k
s
and the soils modulus of elasticity, E
(Vesic & Saxena, 1970). Although these relationships provide some insight, they too are
limited.
Another method consists of computing the average mat settlement using the
techniques of settlement and expressing the results in the form of ks using equation:
k
s
=
q
6

Eng Ahmad Al Omari Eng Essam Ghaith Eng Qutaiba Hameedi
Chapter6:DesignofFoundations 88

6.3 STRUCTURAL DESIGN:



6.3.1 General Methodology:
The structural design of mat foundations must satisfy both strength and serviceability
requirements. This requires two separate analyses, as follows:

Step (1):

Evaluate the strength requirements result from the load combinations and LRFD
design methods (which ACI calls ultimate strength design). The mat must have a
sufficient thickness, T, and reinforcement to satisfy resists these loads. As with spread
footings, T should be large enough that no shear reinforcement is needed.

Step (2):

Evaluating mat deformations (which is the primary serviceability requirement) using
the unfactored loads. These deformations are the result of concentrated loading at the
column locations, possible non-uniformities in the mat, and variations in the soil stiffness.
In effect, these deformations are the equivalent of differential settlement. If they are
excessive, then the mat must be made stiffer by increasing its thickness.

6.3.2 Closed-Form solutions:

When the Winkler method is used (i.e., when all springs have the same Ks) and the
geometry of the problem can be represented in two-dimensions, it is possible to develop
closed-form solutions using the principles of structural mechanics. These solutions
produce values of shear, moment, and deflection at all points in the idealized foundation.
When the loading is complex, the principle of superposition may be used to divide the
problem into multiple simpler problems.

These closed-form solutions were once very popular, because they were the only
practical means of solving this problem. However, the advent and widespread availability
of powerful computers and the associated software now allows us to use other methods
that are more precise and more flexible.



Eng Ahmad Al Omari Eng Essam Ghaith Eng Qutaiba Hameedi
Chapter6:DesignofFoundations 89

6.3.3 Finite Element Method:


Today, most mat foundations are designed with the aid of a computer using the finite
element method (FEM). This method divides the mat into hundreds or perhaps thousands
of elements. Each element has certain defined dimensions, a specified stiffness and
strength (which may be defined in terms of concrete and steel properties) and is
connected to the adjacent elements in a specified way.

The mat elements are connected to the ground through a series of springs, which are
defined using the coefficient of subgrade reaction. Typically, one spring is located at each
corner of each element.

The loads on the mat include the externally applied column loads, applied line loads,
applied area loads, and the weight of the mat itself. These loads press the mat downward,
and this downward movement is resisted by the soil springs. These opposing forces
along with the stiffness of the mat can be evaluated simultaneously using matrix algebra
which allows us to compute the stresses, strains, and distortions in the mat. If the results
of the analysis are not acceptable, the design is modified accordingly and reanalyzed.

This type of finite element analysis does not consider the stiffness of the
superstructure. In other words, it assumes the superstructure is perfectly flexible and
offers no resistance to deformations in the mat. This is conservative.

The finite element analysis can be extended to include the superstructure, the mat, and
the underlying soil in a single three-dimensional finite element method. This method
would, in principle, be a more accurate model of the soil structure system, and thus may
produce a more economical design. However, such analyses are substantially more
complex and time-consuming, and it is very difficult to develop accurate soil properties
for such models. Therefore, these extended finite element analyses are rarely performed
in practice.







Eng Ahmad Al Omari Eng Essam Ghaith Eng Qutaiba Hameedi
Chapter6:DesignofFoundations 90

6.4 DESIGN PROCESS:


6.4.1 General Description:
After performing analysis on 3-D ETABs software Model, all results were obtained;
the base plan then imported with all loads and load combinations to SAFE software in
order to analyze the base as raft foundation.

Figure6.8:(UndeformedShapeforRaftFoundation)

Raft dimensions were selected in order to primarily achieve no bearing capacity and
punching shear problems then serviceability criteria to be checked based on the selected
dimensions.
F The raft covers the base plan with the following offsets relative to the above
raft sketch:
2.4 m to the right,
1.0 m to the left,
1.3 m up, and
1.5 m down.

F Starting with depth, T = 500 mm and by trial and error procedure a depth of T
= 700 mm was selected.

F Due to large variation in loads on columns; for economic wise a suitable drop
of 600 mm was made under heavy load columns.

Eng Ahmad Al Omari Eng Essam Ghaith Eng Qutaiba Hameedi
Chapter6:DesignofFoundations 91

6.4.2 SAFE Outputs:




Figure6.9:(DeformedShapeofRaftFoundationforUltimateCombination)





Figure6.10:(BearingPressureforSoilbeneaththeRaftFoundationforServiceCombination)

Eng Ahmad Al Omari Eng Essam Ghaith Eng Qutaiba Hameedi
Chapter6:DesignofFoundations 92

Figure6.11:(PunchingShearRatiosunderInteriorColumnsforUltimateCombination)


Figure6.12:(PunchingShearRatiosunderallColumnsforUltimateCombination)
Eng Ahmad Al Omari Eng Essam Ghaith Eng Qutaiba Hameedi
Chapter6:DesignofFoundations 93

Figure6.13:(BendingMomentDiagramsforGivenXStrips)


Figure6.14:(BendingMomentDiagramsforGivenYStrips)

Eng Ahmad Al Omari Eng Essam Ghaith Eng Qutaiba Hameedi
Chapter6:DesignofFoundations 94

Figure6.15:(ShearDiagramsforGivenXStrips)



Figure6.16:(ShearDiagramsforGivenYStrips)
Eng Ahmad Al Omari Eng Essam Ghaith Eng Qutaiba Hameedi
Chapter6:DesignofFoundations 95

6.4.3 Sample Calculation:



General Raft (depth = 700 mm):

A
s, min
= 0.0018 b h = (0.0018) (1000) (700) = 126u mm
2
/ m

1260
5
= 252 mm
2
/ 200 mm

Use 118 / 200 mm Top & Bottom


Drop (depth = 600 mm) :

A
s, min
= 0.0018 b h = (0.0018) (1000) (1300) = 2S4u mm
2
/ m

2340
5
= 268 mm
2
/ 200 mm


Use 125/ 200 mm Top & Bottom

Wherever minimum reinforcement exceeded; an additional reinforcement must
be added. This depends on the values of moment in each strip in both X & Y
directions. The following tables can ease this mission.

Table6.1: (ReinforcementGuidelineforGeneralRaft)
ReinforcementBars AreaofSteel(mm
2
permeter)
518 1272
518+512 1838
518+514 2042
518+516 2277
518+518 2544
518+520 2843
518+525 3173
518+532 3726

Table6.2: (ReinforcementGuidelineforDrops)
ReinforcementBars AreaofSteel(mm
2
permeter)
525 2454
525+512 3020
525+514 3224
525+516 3459
525+518 3726
525+520 4025
525+525 4908
525+532 6475
Eng Ahmad Al Omari Eng Essam Ghaith Eng Qutaiba Hameedi
Chapter6:DesignofFoundations 96

For X-strip:

F M
u
,
bottom
= 2150 kN.m / m


h = 1300mm

d = 1150mm

R
u
=
Mu - 10
6

0.9 - b - d
2

=
2150 - 10
6

0.9 - 1000 - 1150
2

= 1.806

=
0.85 - Ic

Iy
( 1 _1 -
2 Ru
0.85 -Ic
)

=
0.85 - 28
420
(1 _1 -
2- 1.806
0.85 - 28
)

= 0.0045

A
s, required
= * b * d = 0.0045 * 1000 * 1150 = 5175 mm
2


Use 525 + 532


F M
u
,
Top
= - 250 kN.m / m

h= 700mm

d= 575mm

R
u
=
Mu - 10
6

0.9 - b - d
2

=
250 - 10
6

0.9 - 1000 - 575
2

= 0.840

=
0.85 - Ic

Iy
( 1 _1 -
2 Ru
0.85 -Ic
)

=
0.85 - 28
420
( 1 _1 -
2- 0.840
0.85 - 28
)

= 0.0020

A
s req
= * b * d = 0.0020 * 1000 * 575 = 1150 mm
2


A
s req
< A
s min
Use A
s,min
= 1272 mm
2


Use 518




Eng Ahmad Al Omari Eng Essam Ghaith Eng Qutaiba Hameedi
Chapter6:DesignofFoundations 97

For Y-strip:

F M
u
,
bottom
= 1686 kN.m / m

h= 1300mm

d= 1150mm

R
u
=
Mu - 10
6

0.9 - b - d
2

=
1686 - 10
6

0.9 - 1000 - 1150
2

= 1.416

=
0.85 - Ic

Iy
( 1 _1 -
2 Ru
0.85 -Ic
)

=
0.85 - 28
420
( 1 _1 -
2- 1.416
0.85 - 28
)

= 0.0035

A
s req
= * b * d = 0.00348 * 1000 * 1150 = 4025 mm
2


Use 525+ 525



F M
u
,
Top
= - 490 kN.m / m

h = 700mm

d = 575mm

R
u
=
Mu - 10
6

0.9 - b - d
2

=
490 - 10
6

0.9 - 1000 - 575
2

= 1.647

=
0.85 - Ic

Iy
( 1 _1 -
2 Ru
0.85 -Ic
)

=
0.85 - 28
420
( 1 _1 -
2- 1.647
0.85 - 28
)

= 0.00406

A
s req
= * b * d = 0.00406 * 1000 * 575 = 2338 mm
2


Use 518 + 518



Eng Ahmad Al Omari Eng Essam Ghaith Eng Qutaiba Hameedi
Chapter6:DesignofFoundations 98

Check Punching shear:

For the purpose of checking punching shear; an Equivalent 800 mm side


Square column corresponding to the circular column of diameter of D = 900 mm
was taken;

F C = 800 mm.
F d = 1150 mm. assumed
F b
0
= c +d = 800 + 1150 =1950 mm
F M
u
= 3110 kN.m "From SAFE Model"
F P
u
= 8791 kN from ETABS Model

F V
uc
= [
P
u
4
+
M
u
c+d
(
B
2
-(c+d)
2
B
2
)

= [
8791
4
+
3110
0.8+1.15
(
3
2
-(0.8+1.15)
2
3
2
= 3085.2 kN
F V
c
=
1
3
b
0
J
c



= (0.75)
1
3
(19Su)(11Su)28 = 3955.4 kN

F Punching Shear Ratio =
v
uc
Vc
= 0.78 "OK"












Eng Ahmad Al Omari Eng Essam Ghaith Eng Qutaiba Hameedi
Chapter6:DesignofFoundations 99




Figure6.17:(RaftFoundationDetails)


Eng Ahmad Al Omari Eng Essam Ghaith Eng Qutaiba Hameedi
Chapter6:DesignofFoundations 100


Figure6.18:(SectionsinRaft)

Eng Ahmad Al Omari Eng Essam Ghaith Eng Qutaiba Hameedi